Talk:metacube
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
Rfv-sense "(metaphysics, geometry) A visual aid depicting a hypothetical fourth dimension". — surjection ⟨?⟩ 11:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- I think the drive-by editors who added and modified this sense were having fun at the expense of more serious contributors. The attribute “hypothetical” and the label metaphysics (added without using the
{{lb}}template) do not make much sense. Some nonce uses found (e.g. a 3-dimensional arrangement of eight smaller cubes into a cube) and a capitalized gnostic use, apparently short for “Metatron's Cube”, representing (depending on whom you ask) the Cosmic Christ (888) or the Holy Trinity. --Lambiam 15:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Rfv-sense Thank you for providing examples of prior use of the term. The block party metacube problem, may be one example of effective use of the device one might term a metacube. The cited block party metacube problem in the verification request may be similar in concept and different by design to our version released recently to Wikimedia Commons. — This unsigned comment was added by Unidentified Flying Cheeseburgers (talk • contribs).
- This apparently refers to File:Metacube on Black Background, 3 pt line.jpg. The comment makes it clear that, in the sense provided, the term is a neologism. --Lambiam 00:07, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User_talk:Kiwima#metacube Attestation makes sense for a term that may exist which Wiktionary may not yet include, however in a case where a class of objects may be without a suitable collective term, providing examples of use may prove difficult if not impossible. To complicate the matter, an existing entry for what may be a preferred term for such an object class, has an existing entry and may be unnecessarily limited by description to one specific use (note: metacube qualified as a new term and appears only in Wiktionary), further complicated by the reference to hypercube which may serve as a specific example of the class of object but as a general term for the class of objects may be a misnomer, so although a suitable and preferred term exists, we're left without a Wiktionary reference for the class of objects simply due to lack of a generalized description for an existing term.
That's about the best we can do to provide an accurate description of the current condition and totally up to the contributors if or how they wish to address the matter; we refer to the platform often and although for our purposes a Wiktionary entry to reference metacube may be preferable, lack of such a reference ought not present a problem except perhaps the confusion that the existing definition may present.
Best of luck and continued success. Unidentified Flying Cheeseburgers (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)